Gentlemen,
I agree that it should be brought to the attention of the chief editor, and should not be
reviewed by the same editor who approved MFC09. It's best if someone else drafts the cover
letter. Does anyone know the chief editor?
Although I favor extremely rapid submission, I oppose either submission or circulation to
other parties until we've taken at least a few days to let our thoughts "settle." I
suggest that Monday is the earliest we should consider making this available. However, I
don't know how critical the political situation is in the southern hemisphere, so I'm open
to persuasion. At the very least, we need everyone's explicit consent to co-authorship and
everybody's affiliation information, before releasing any document to anybody.
As for the constants in MFC09 eqs. (1) and (2), let me check the standard errors for those
estimates. If they're plus or minus so much as to make them meaningless, we might not want
to raise the issue of their implication in terms of a warming trend. If I recall
correctly, when I considered the properties of the MFC09 filter I determined that the
average value of the filtered time series depends only on the first and last 12 data values
for monthly time series (UAHTMT) and the first and last 4 data values for quarterly
(RATPAC-A) -- this could imply very large uncertainty in the estimated constant from
regression analysis.
As eager as I am to strike while iron is hot, let's not be hasty.
Sincerely,
Grant
______________________________________________________________________________________